Arcadia Discussion Zone

Yeah, just exclusionary policies and attitudes, which is why you can't see their forum unless they let you register and decide whether or not to ban you depending on whether or not you happen to express an opinion which varies from theirs and refuse to give in to their badgering to see things their way or whether you happen to point out the glaring lack of intellect among the forum regulars and administrator. Welcome to the Nazi Oak Island forum.co.uk.

JB,

Well, it's a shame you feel the way you do. One of the top posters on the forum is actually a skeptic - and his posts and insights are always welcomed.

Indy

Indiana Jones,




And therein lies the beauty of www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk, it is open to everyone as long as you maintain a certain sense of decorum, something not practised by many here which is why I try and lead valued, two way Oak Island discussion to Jo's site.

As long as you're not looking for any discussion about the actual solution to any part of the OI mystery, then that forum is fine. If idle chit chat about the stuff you can find in a bunch of books, ie; the historical facts about OI, is what you're looking for then by all means go there. The entire forum member list is unable to produce a single shred of credible solution theory between them, which pretty much demonstrates the collective IQ of that forum. Or perhaps I missed the big announcements of the solution to anything related to the OI mystery, being that nobody can actually see the forum. If so, then go ahead and post those announcements right here, Tank. Sometime this year would be nice, or at least this decade. Have any of you explained the OI Cross yet, Tank? Gee, I did that a few years ago. A little slow, aren't you guys, Tank. You can't even solve one itty bitty little megalithic cross? What the hell, Tank?
If you want actual solution theories, and not wacky ones like Ranville's and Iman's, then this is the only forum to find it.

Hi c2518, for several years I was an active member on that website www.oakislandtreasure.com.uk (canvased here by Tank (Danny Hennigar OITS director). Although some of my topics had about twenty thousand or more viewing hits, I was hounded out by Tank and O'Conner for dispicably defending myself against the venomous attacks of these gentlemen and other of their ilk.

Why was I suddenly so unpopular, it's because I exposed deceptions that were still served up to the public as fact essentually for profit, therefore OITS members queued up to attack me. If you want simple logic and the plain truth just listen to what I tell you and avoid people who exploit Oak Island for personal gain. If Tank, O'Conner or Jolts are so good ask them what the Money pits was designed to do, what was it's function, they haven't got a clue.

Cerris

www.oakislandrevelations.com

JB,
Take Crooker"s or Nolan"s survey of the OI Cross and it says nothing,as far as the measurements are concerned.Take P.Amundsens survey of it,and you would be surprised at what those measurements tell you.

Dave

Amundsen didn't survey the Cross, because it is mostly on Nolan's property and Nolan wouldn't let him on it. I noticed you didn't bother to actually post the "survey" you are referring to. Am I supposed to mysteriously know all about it somehow?
Amundsen made the extremely obvious observation that the Cross is vaguely similar to the Tree of Life. I noticed that years before him but I also noticed that none of the dimensions match it exactly and that the top stone is off by about 62 feet. I later deduced how it was actually derived from the Tree of Life, rather than being based directly on it as Amundsen erroneously concluded. I also directly linked the exact OI Cross configuration to a 1618 Rosicrucian print, while Amundsen failed to directly link it to anything Rosicrucian at all.
Now I have to wonder why you are so eager to praise Amundsen for his uncanny ability to notice the obvious while you completely ignore the fact that I actually solved the exact OI Cross configuration and proved that it was Rosicrucian in origin. What's the matter, Mr. Wood, is the solution, shown below, a little to complicated for you? Stick with Amundsen. He's more your level. I also suggest that Tank avert his gaze from this image because it may make his brain hurt, which only an extra large draft will be able to cure.

Apart from the conversation having ended after that little tirade,how could you comment on Petters survey dimensions when in the previous sentence you said you didnt know them. Not that I"m looking for a reply,as far as that goes you can shove it.

Dave,

Allow me to offer a small piece of advice to you, don't waste your breath on this.

You will receive nothing but insults, braggadocio, and slurred information. This guy has never stepped foot on Oak Island is not going to do so any time soon. He depends entirely on William Crooker’s writing, none of his own work, other than the etch -a- sketch meanderings you see here. He has not authenticated a single foot of these lines and angles he has taken and he lives not more than 45 minutes from the area in Halifax.

I have dealt with this person (on line) for probably four years now and can tell you, all you will get it a nasty reply almost every time, there is not a shred of gentlemanly conduct in his bones. That is why he was banned from Jo’s site, not once, but twice after he was given umteen chances to straighten himself out even a little.

I feel sorry for you because all you tried to do was engage in conversation about a subject matter you appreciate a great deal. Have a pint and forget this foolishness until another poster comes along you can have a two way discourse with. It is best to ignore people like this as hard as it is to do so.

Now, wait for the rebuttal, it will be hot........

I don't recall making a tirade, and it is quite obvious who is the rude jackass here, Mr. Wood. I also don't recall mentioning Admunsten's dimensions. If they are different from Crooker and Nolan's then they are obviously bogus.
So Tank, I see you are still as belligerent and brainless as ever. Now where is your explanation for the OI Cross configuration? Do you really think your insults will be able to turn attention away from your lack of any kind of independent thought? Now go back to what's her name's anti-Mensa club and keep rehashing other people's research. You keep harping on my not having set foot on Oak Island, like that means anything at all. You have apparently bunny hopped all over what little areas you have been allowed on and it certainly doesn't seem to have helped you solve anything about the mystery. Correct me if I am wrong, by posting your solution to ANYTHING vaguely related to the OI mystery. By either posting nothing or trying to misdirect the issue by making slanderous comments about me you will have conceded the fact that you are brainless, much like Mr. Wood. I think you two both drank the same brand of draft. You know, the kind that kills twice the number of brain cells as the next leading brand.

Tank,
Point and pint taken.Cheers

Dave

Tank has conceded his brainlessness, as expected. Go join him, Woody, on what's her name's forum where the general public won't have their intelligence offended by seeing the posts unless they are dumb enough to register.

Wow! I haven't been here for a while, but this jb1717 guy seems to get more nutsoid all the time. How come he and Cerris and Keith haven't teamed up yet to solve the mystery?

D'Arcy

I already DID solve the mystery, numnuts, singlehandedly. It's just that you're too stupid to even realize that. Now go write the same book again for the third or fourth time.
Take a look at that image on this page. That's the exact OI Cross configuration with all points accurate to within a tolerance of 1 inch when scaled up to the actual size of the real Cross. That kind of accuracy is far beyond your level of comprehension so go tell everyone the Petter Amundsen solved it even though the top point is 62 feet off in his solution. That's good enough for Woody, so it should be good enough for you, being that you both have the same IQ, below average.

I dont normally get involved in arguments on these forums,to me they are a waste of positive energy,but what the heck jB.Just what personality malfunction have you been diagnosed with having.If it is a mental disorder its excusable,if it isnt then your personality sux to the max,mate.

I have the personality disorder known as high intellect. I can see why a dumb guy would find that to be a negative trait. My very existence is humiliating to someone like you and Tank.

D'Arcy and Dave,

I'm tellin' ya, this is going to get ugly before it gets better. Apparently high *intellekt does not guarantee good manners.

* in tell ekt >noun 1. Off shore version of the word intellect, usually self proclaimed and easy to purchase documents to prove such from a third world source.
- Origin: Latin intellectus “understanding” or lack thereof in this case.

It got ugly when Tank showed up on the forum. I had to pretty it up with that image of the actual highly complex manner in which the Oak Island Cross configuration was derived from the Kabbalistic Tree of Life figure.
I challenge any and all members of what's her name's forum to provide an equally or more precise method by which the OI Cross dimensions can be derived from the Tree of Life or any other known geometric figures or even provide a non-geometric explanation which sounds plausible.
What's the matter, Tank? Still haven't even started on your OI Cross solution? You're really behind, Tank. Try to keep up with the rest of the class, will ya?

You"re having me on,right?

Yeah, I'm having you on, that's it. My IQ isn't really 135 according to both internet IQ tests I took. Now look at this table which tells you what level 135 is; http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx
I just took another IQ test and it said 136; http://web.tickle.com/tests/uiq/result. ... est=uiqogt

Not bad,mines 142.

Supposing P.Amundsens survey is correct,just for arguments sake,at 60deg to North,and the arm at 720ft,what geometrical figure would that produce.?

Dave

JB,
I was asked to post this on behalf of Petter Amundsen.

Dear Jachin Boaz 1717(or whatever jb stands for),I cannot resist the urge to comment on your statement regarding Nolans Cross.To me it is adding strength to a thesis that independent observers agree.I know for sure that I am not the only one seeing the Tree of Life in the cross layout,and this I find to be comforting.Myself I noticed it in 2001 and described it in a 2003 writing delivered to Triton Alliance"s Les Macphie when I visited Oak Island to test my theory spade in hand.In 2006 it was published in a book (co-authored with Erlend Loe)which has sold more than 10000 copies.It is due in Poland and Holland this fall.In it I link it to R.C. sources and build a case for one of the Sephiroth as the ultimate point X.My diagram is quite different from yours as it employs the 5 boulders for 5 Sephiroths.The only adjustment is to increase the 293ft distance to 294ft.The top boulder is no longer in-situ and I operate with a top distance of 147ft,not 145ft.147 is twice 294 (the value of Rhodon,BTW).Looking at your diagram it appears to me that you only use two of the boulders directly for sephiroth.The 3 remaining cones have different purposes,but I find it hard to determine what exactly this is.Cone E(the bottom)seems to touch the perimeter of a yellow circle.But why?

Making it simple,following my method,gives you a Tree of 5x8 ratio,or 720ftx1152ft.The R.C.tomb of FAMA has sides of this proportion.Which 1618 book are you referring to for confirmation?

All well and good. I prefer to use the actual dimensions. Even the one foot error in the stem stone is rather large but the 2 foot error in the top stone position is certainly unacceptable. The hole was still in the ground where that stone had been moved from. No way Crooker and Nolan's estimates of its former top position could be off by a full quarter of the stone's diameter.
Why is the bottom of the cross at the bottom of the yellow circle? That circle comes from the two outer additional Sephiroth just as the green circle does. Therefore the two lowest cross points are related. The bottom of the cross obviously doesn't fall on the edge of the Sephira which it is very close to touching because if it did then the stem would be 720 feet from center to bottom, which is a full 2 feet shorter than its actual length. Also, if the second stem stone were directly between the centers of the two Sephiroth which it is close to being between, the distance from the center of the cross would be 415.6921945 feet instead of the true distance of 429.
For your theory to be correct, 3 stones would have to be off by a foot or more from what they really are. Doesn't that tell you something, like that your theory requires substantial revision in order to be regarded as plausible? The dimension to the second stem stone is simply not 294 but 293, which produces a nearly perfect 40,50,90 triangle between the stem and the arms. That's why 293 is significant and 294 is not, even though it may be the Gematria value of the word rhodon. If the value were 293 you might have something, but 294 is simply a coincidentally CLOSE number. Were the Cross on a smaller scale, the difference wouldn't be as noticeable. Since they chose to scale it up to that huge size, they must have intended to depict the actual precise dimensions, and yours is off by a good foot, hardly a slight inaccuracy.
The 1618 Rosicrucian publication I refer to is Mirror of the Wisdom of the Rosicrucians, which you can easily find the full text of on the web.
Now please explain why the Rosicrucians would make a cross which is similar to the constellation Cygnus and place it on Oak Island. I say it is because the top of the Northern Cross (Cygnus) points right to the constellations Cepheus and Cassiopeia, which I believe they associated with Cronus and Rhea. They also believed that the 1572 supernova which occurred in Cassiopeia was a portent of the restoration of the Golden Age. Rather appropriate since Cronus and Rhea were the king and queen of the Golden Age, and all the other gods.

So why can't you comprehend that the OI Cross has been correctly solved by me? You probably guessed at a couple answers and got lucky. Now do it twice more with different tests.